Page images
PDF
EPUB

have been in the river, yet not in the water: all within the banks is the river." (Carson on Bap., pp. 336-7, 339.)

[ocr errors]

All within, within the banks, is the river. Comment here is needless. This is how Carson helps along our interpretation, and makes it palatable to the immersionist.

Now, do we not prove by Carson every thing that we contend for here? The baptism of John then took place by the river Jordan, in its channel, on dry ground, and of course by affusion.

The preposition into will only require a passing notice, its office being made so plain by the previous explanations on in. Into the wilderness, into a tree, into a mountain. Here, as in baptism, it merely refers to place; hence we state most positively that it makes no difference where Philip baptized, nor where John baptized, place being one thing, but mode quite a different matter. John baptized with water, and so did Philip, there being nothing in the word in or into to forbid this-the words only referring to place, as already noticed. When place is spoken of, we find in and into; but when mode is spoken of, which we shall particularly examine in our next, the word with is always presented. See Chapter X, on into.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

THE reader is in possession of our views and arguments on the import and application of the term in, as set forth in the narrations of John's baptism; for in our last we brought this matter clearly up, and presented the whole in a garb easily to be comprehended by all. In a word, we made it incontrovertibly evident that in, as used in the accounts given of John's baptism, simply signifies that an act was done by him, called a baptism, within the limits of a place called Jordan, and within the limits of a place called the wilderness, and also within the limits of Bethabara and Enon. In view of this, it will be found self-evident, if an immersionist should insist that John did baptize exactly in the water of Jordan, because in is used, the consequence will be, by a similar dogmatic position, that John baptized exactly in the soil of the wilderness, in the soil of Enon, and in the streets or floors of the town of Bethabara, because in is employed to express his baptisms at these points. This cannot be resisted nor denied ; inasmuch as the account runs thus: he baptized in Jordan, in the wilderness, in Enon, in Bethabara. Now, fix to in the meaning attached to it in our last, that is, within the limits of these places, and the whole is perfectly plain, and the sense striking. To illustrate this, we shall say that a murder was committed in Tennessee, another in Alabama, and another in Mississippi. By this form of speech, we only speak of the places where these murders were perpetrated, without any reference to the mode of any one of them. Can any other signification be attached to such a statement? We

answer, no. Well, this being self-apparent, we shall proceed by saying, that the murder was done in Tennessee with a rock, the murder in Alabama with a club, and the murder in Mississippi with a knife. Here we make a pause, to ask, is it not clearly evident that this form of speech sets forth the mode of the murder, and the agents used? These illustrations must ably show the reader, that when John's baptism is spoken of in reference to the places, the word in is always used, but, when spoken of in reference to mode, the word with is always used. The statements about the murders in the above States, where in is employed, do not directly or indirectly express the mode of these murders; but the statements, where with is employed directly do. In like manner we are to understand the history of John's baptism. We lay great emphasis on this; for, had this been attended to, great confusion of thought, in confounding the statements on the place with the statement on the mode, might have always been avoided; and, if now attended to, the inquirer after truth may forever keep from error, and be perfectly satisfied that where in is used, in the account of John's baptism, the place is only pointed out, and that where with is used in this account, the mode is evidently expressed. How plain! Still the perception of an immersionist will magnify.

To add force to this, we remark, to baptize in water is to make water a passive agent, and the person the object put into it; but to baptize with water, is to make man the passive object, and water the agent used in the act. How then did it ever get into the heads of men that John immersed in water, when it is said at every point that he baptized with water? We almost feel like being compelled here to exclaim, O, the depths of the incongruity of man's reasoning and perception!

To baptize with water is one thing, but to baptize in water is quite a different thing; hence we are forced to reiterate our conviction, that it is a matter of surprise how any reader of the English Testament should have ever thought of immersion in the case of John's baptism, when it is explicitly said, in every place, that he baptized with water, when speaking of mode, but never in water. Let it be distinctly understood that wherever the mode or manner of John's baptism is spoken of in the New Testament, the word in is never used, but the word with ever, and facts and faith will be found right exactly right. Our conclusion from these reflections is, that it would be as reasonable to infer the mode of the murders named, because in is employed to designate the places, as to infer the mode of John's baptism, because in is used to locate the points at which he labored; and that he who cannot see affusion in John's baptism, could not see affusion in this statement-the lady wet her flowers with water. In short, he that can squeeze immersion, having the English Testament before him, out of John's baptism, when it is said he baptized with water, not in water, could easily squeeze immersion out of the statement we make concerning the wetting of the flowers with water, making it appear, from some strange charm about the word wet, as around the word baptize, that she virtually plunged the flowers in the water. The common sense of mankind, however, will remain satisfied with this idea, that when it is said John baptized WITH water, no matter whether in Jordan, in the wilderness, or in Bethabara, he applied the water to the subjects in the form of affusion, and in no other way.

It may be asked here, how are we satisfied that John baptized by affusion in every instance, seeing it is said that Jesus after he was baptized went

straightway up out of the water, and that he baptized at Enon, because there was much water there? The reader will perceive that in the case of the Savior's baptism by John, the word in is not used, and that we have disposed of this term as used in the account of John's action while at Enon, by proving that it signifies that he did what is placed to his account within the bounds of a place designated Enon. We unhesitatingly reply, that if it had been recorded that he baptized all in the river Jordan, still the doctrine of affusion would be evident, and triumphant, from the facts that we have already presented, that he baptized wITH water ever, and never in water. We almost fear we shall here be misunderstood. We mean to say most distinctly and emphatically, that the Scriptures always speak of John baptizing with water, when speaking of his mode, but never in water. Need we repeat that in is always used when the place is set forth, but with when mode is spoken of?

How the aspect of words may be misunderstood! Jesus went up straightway out of the water, hence the opinion that he was immersed. Well, let John speak for himself at this point: "I indeed baptize with water:" hence he baptized the Savior with water, by affusion, not in water, the doctrine of immersion. We assert, and re-assert, with the Bible before us, that John baptized the Savior with water, and not in water. We have no objection to the Savior being regarded as standing in the edge of the waters of Jordan, John baptizing him WITH water; but we have unwavering objections to the doctrine that John immersed him IN water, the Scriptures declaring that John always baptized with water. The word with is the pillar of our faith here. How sure and imposing the foundation!

The words out of, as used in the account of our

« PreviousContinue »